Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Libby says Bush authorized leaks


Crazyhorse1

Recommended Posts

Guest sith lord

If a link is provided, the republicans on this board will still discredit it. So what difference would it make to provide a link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Byt he way, I'm not saying I couldn't find basic information on this myself. I wanted to know what CrazyHorse was referring to. Sometimes people are referring to blogs and stuff, and the debate changes.

Oh no I understand. The "for crying out loud" wasn't directed at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try, "BUSH authorized leaks, Sarge"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040600333.html

Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

By PETE YOST

The Associated Press

Thursday, April 6, 2006; 12:57 PM

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

The authorization came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.

Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller _ getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval _ were unique in his recollection," the papers added.

Libby is asking for voluminous amounts of classified information from the government in order to defend himself against five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame affair.

He is accused of making false statements about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about it.

Her CIA status was publicly disclosed eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

In 2002, Wilson had been dispatched to Africa by the CIA to check out intelligence that Iraq had an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger, and Wilson had concluded that there was no such arrangement.

Libby says he needs extensive classified files from the government to demonstrate that Plame's CIA connection was a peripheral matter that he never focused on, and that the role of Wilson's wife was a small piece in a building public controversy over the failure to find WMD in Iraq.

Fitzgerald said in the new court filing that Libby's requests for information go too far and the prosecutor cited Libby's own statements to investigators in an attempt to limit the amount of information the government must turn over to Cheney's former chief of staff for his criminal defense.

According to Miller's grand jury testimony, Libby told her about Plame's CIA status in the July 8, 2003 conversation that took place shortly after the White House aide _ according to the new court filing _ was authorized by Bush through Cheney to disclose sensitive intelligence about Iraq and WMD contained in a National Intelligence Estimate.

The court filing was first disclosed by The New York Sun.

All I've got to say is...."Whoa"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, back on the subject:

I've only skimmed the articles. The national journal article seems to have more facts and less speculation. (I think the CBS story is trying to say Bush authorised blowing Plame's cover, without actually saying it.)

And as to the legality of that, I'd say that I'm definatly not one of the biggest advocates 'round here of "implied Presidential powers", but I'd say, at least in the absence of a statute saying otherwise, that the President does have unilateral authority to declassify information. (Or to delegate that authority to subordinates.) Somebody has to make those decisions, and I'd say it's the Executive branch.

(I'd hope that there's a statute that establishes a more complicated proceedure for classification (and de-), to prevent some (hypothetical) administration deciding that all information that confirms global warming is classified. (Or classifying all information about a DC burglary). But untill somebody quotes such a statute, then as far as I'm concerned, it's the President's call.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [George W. Bush: Chicago, Illinois, 9/30/03]

See? Move along, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, back on the subject:

I've only skimmed the articles. The national journal article seems to have more facts and less speculation. (I think the CBS story is trying to say Bush authorised blowing Plame's cover, without actually saying it.)

And as to the legality of that, I'd say that I'm definatly not one of the biggest advocates 'round here of "implied Presidential powers", but I'd say, at least in the absence of a statute saying otherwise, that the President does have unilateral authority to declassify information. (Or to delegate that authority to subordinates.) Somebody has to make those decisions, and I'd say it's the Executive branch.

(I'd hope that there's a statute that establishes a more complicated proceedure for classification (and de-), to prevent some (hypothetical) administration deciding that all information that confirms global warming is classified. (Or classifying all information about a DC burglary). But untill somebody quotes such a statute, then as far as I'm concerned, it's the President's call.)

Well said Larry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought THIS was old news...from Larry's link:

..

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

..

A decision was made to discredit Wilson by saying his WIFE got him the assingment...among other things.

What is new?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

A decision was made to discredit Wilson by saying his WIFE got him the assingment...among other things.

What is new?

From the article--

"Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case."

So, it doesn't bother you that in essence Bush authorized the leak of SENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION? I don't care if it was about Valerie Plame's identity or not. Should the President be leaking what he considers "sensitive intelligence information about Iraq" If it's sensitive it needs to remain secret, doesn't it? How does leaking it protect or serve this nation's interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the paragraph or the article... Libby was told to leak "sensitive" information. It's a key word. He wasn't told they desclassified it so that this information is free to go out to the general press, but that it was sensitive and he should secretly leak it anonymously. This indicates that they felt it probably would be inappropriate to officially declassify it and change its status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your guessing in this case. It may or may not be. Since we know that the identity of operating CIA agents is classified and this case is about Plame, it is not unreasonable to assume that sensitive equals classified. (mind you, I'm guessing too)

More to the point, if they considered the information sensitive or important to American interests and not for general consumption it shouldn't have been leaked. When President Bush said anyone caught doing this would be immediately fired when he knew he was the one who authorized it, don't you think he knew that there was something wrong about leaking this sensitive information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...